Author
Topic: Changes in jpg - will it move people away from RAW? (Read 17428 times)

.Interesting, I was just reading about this in Tim Grey's newsletter. He said:

"What this means is that while the “official” JPEG ISO standard has not been updated, a software library that allows applications making use of that library has been updated. The software library in question is called “libjpeg”, and my understanding is that the free GIMP imaging software makes use of this library but that Photoshop does not. In other words, with certain applications, if they update their software to the latest version of libjpeg, users could then save JPEG images with lossless compression and 12-bit per channel support. They just wouldn’t be able to open those images properly in most other software.

"In other words, this update is a bit of a non-starter for many photographers, including myself."

I'm not sure that there is a way to _not_ adopt this. It's not a new format. It's the latest version of the standard libjpeg. Now, software that works with jpg might choose to ignore the new features, even if they use the latest version of the library, which would be equivalent to not adopting it, but that sounds a little lame from a marketing perspective.

If say lightroom does not allow you to save 12bit jpeg two years from now, wouldn't that be a great selling point for all the competitors? Look, we can do something that lightroom can't and we are even standard compliant!

You're of course assuming that all software uses the libjpeg library. That isn't true. Most GPL stuff does indeed use libjpeg as is, but very few propriety software packages do.

The license for libjpeg states that you can use the library in any product, but you must acknowledge that use. So chances are, if your software package uses libjpeg they'll be an attribution somewhere for it.

This is all ignoring that the majority source of jpeg files isn't software, it's hardware. There is NO way that embedded hardware uses libjpeg as is, it's far too big and cumbersome to run as embedded software on most platforms (big and cumbersome = power hungry), nevermind the hardware implementations of jpeg compression baked into many asics.

Fact is, for the majority of the market, jpg is "good enough", and I don't see offering support for this format to the average consumer being something the consumers will flock towards. Most consumers add stupid instagram filters to their photos, they don't care about high colour depth or lossless encoding, and I don't see that changing.

Given then that loss-less Jpeg has been around a while and not wildly adopted I doubt this will change anything. So No. I will not stop shooting raw.

The big problem is that all of the current Loss-less jpeg versions are either incompatible or incur copyright /patent issues. And while it is now true there are now non-patent encumbered free software available their methods are non-standard and not be widely supported.

JPEG, be it 8 bit or 12 bit or 16 bit has the guess that the camera firmware makes as to the colors, brightness, contrast, black levels, baked in, and difficult to change without introducing artifacts.Raw is much more flexible in allowing those parameters to be adjusted before baking them in.

It will be a long time before most infra structure can use a new format. At first (5+ Yrs), most of the files will have to be down converted to 8 bit jpeg in order to use them anywhere. Eight bit jpeg is embedded into everything, and that's the issue. Printers, computer software, not just photo editing software or the web, but everything from e-mail to publication software to things like financial software, there is so much of it that some of it won't change for 50 years. Expensive multi million dollar custom software used by big corporations will not change quickly, some of that is 50 years old and uses long obsolete software like FAP, or more recently obsolete software like Cobol.

I don't see how it can replace RAW since RAW is still in Bayer format and so on and so forth.It might well replace TIFF and PNG and so on for storing high-bit edits and final outputs though (although 12bits would still be a bit less flexible for going back and re-editing than the 15bits or so you can already use with other formats).

Forgive me Forum for I have sinned.I shoot RAW + JPEG. I am willing to admit that now. At sporting events my files must occasionally be emailed to editors within minutes. They do not want RAW (Damn them). I send them jpeg, straight from the camera.Worse yet, later I cull and keep only the best 10-20 RAW shots from a game. 1-2K other RAW photos go to the trash, and they go screaming.And so it is with birthday photos of my kid, and similar. I use the jpegs, unless the photo is so good that a RAW edit is worth my time.If and when this new format becomes available I will shoot.... RAW + JPEG. I am so sorry.

I've taken the first step, I've admitted I have a problem. Go easy one me.

Forgive me Forum for I have sinned.I shoot RAW + JPEG. I am willing to admit that now. At sporting events my files must occasionally be emailed to editors within minutes. They do not want RAW (Damn them). I send them jpeg, straight from the camera.Worse yet, later I cull and keep only the best 10-20 RAW shots from a game. 1-2K other RAW photos go to the trash, and they go screaming.And so it is with birthday photos of my kid, and similar. I use the jpegs, unless the photo is so good that a RAW edit is worth my time.If and when this new format becomes available I will shoot.... RAW + JPEG. I am so sorry.

I've taken the first step, I've admitted I have a problem. Go easy one me.

My name is Don. (Hi Don!) I have been saving files as RAW and Jpeg... (Gasp!) I started doing Jpegs with an Apple Quicktake 100, then with a Kodak DC40, then with various Olympus P/S cameras.... At first 320x160 pixels was enough, then it had to be 400x300, then it was 756x504.... I just had to get bigger and bigger Jpegs for my jPeg fix... Now I need 18Megapixel jPegs to get high and it still isn't enough... sometimes I lock myself into a dark room and stitch together multiple images to try to get an even bigger jPeg fix.... One day a gorgeous lady seduced me to go Canon and introduced me to the hard stuff... RAW files.

Now I am doing RAW and still can't give up my jPeg habit... I have tried to quit, but in the end I just bought a bigger hard drive and my jPeg habit is running wild.....

Picture: Cornwallis Island, near Resolute, Canadian High Arctic, taken with a Quicktake100...

I have to confess my sin. I also broke one of the 10 commandments of Canon Rumors. Yes, my brothers. I also shoot JPEG when I know I will have thousands of photos to deliver to my client the next day. Yes, my fault. But my clients want to JPEG, and I do not want to spend all morning RAW processing. Now I know that I am doomed to eternal damnation, I would like to have a JPEG with better color depth, and lossless. I'm going to hell, but I'll keep shooting JPEG when I find it convenient. I was never sure of it, but before the Messiah to come to earth, everyone was doomed, and no one saved his soul? At the time there was RAW, the images were not useful for anything?

...By the sweat of your browyou will eat your foodAnd between RAW and jpegsyou'll need to chooseuntil you return to the ground,since from it you were taken;for dust you areand to dust on a sensor you will return.

Logged

What a mess, my camera's sensor is full of massless particules that keep on trying to behave like waves!